The Daily Grasshopper

Where has the Wall Street Journal been all my life? I picked up the nation's business paper again today, and I'm hooked. There's some great stuff in there! The best is the op-ed by the head of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi. You remember his name: he's the guy who said "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" after Saddam is overthrown. Not that there's anything wrong with that... (more at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0926-05.htm).

Well, check out the title of his opinion piece in today's WSJ: "Iraq for the Iraqis." And he's not the only one pressing his case for a say in what a post-Saddam Iraq should look like. In today's New York Times, there's an op-ed by the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, entitled "Flashback For the Kurds" that describes the aspirations of the Kurdish people of Northern Iraq.

What is obvious from reading both articles is that both Chalabi and Galbraith take at face value the Bush administration's claim that their purpose in waging war is to "liberate the Iraqi people." This is a lot more charitable an assessment of Bush & Co. than I'm willing to make, but let's grant, just for a moment, that that's in fact what they are aiming at (i.e., forget everything I've written in the past 6 weeks).

If the plan is to let democracy bloom in Iraq, then there are going to be some problems, as both these authors point out.

Here's the relevant section of the Chalabi piece:

"This is why the proposed U.S. occupation and military administration of Iraq is unworkable and unwise. Unworkable, because it is predicated on keeping Saddam's existing structures of government, administration and security in place - albeit under American officers. It would ultimately leave important decisions about the future of Iraq in the hands of either foreign occupiers or Saddam's officials. Unwise, because it will result in long-term damage to the U.S.-Iraq relationship and America's position in the region and beyond.

The current U.S. plan proposed for Iraq, as outlined by senior officials in congressional testimony and in discussions with the Iraqi opposition, calls for an American military governor to rule Iraq for up to two years. American officers would staff the top three levels of Iraqi government ministries with the rest of the structure remaining the same. The occupation authorities would appoint a 'consultative council' of hand-picked Iraqis with non-executive powers and unspecified authority, serving at the pleasure of the American governor. The occupation authorities would also appoint a committee to draft a constitution for Iraq. After an unspecified period, indirect elections would be held for a 'constituent assembly' that would vote to ratifythe new constitution without a popular referendum."

Chalabi goes on to compare Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime to Hitler's, and says that "You cannot cut off the viper's head and leave the body festering. Unfortunately, the proposed U.S. plan will do just that if it does not dismantle the Baathist structures." Here's how he wraps up (sorry - there's no link available, so I have to transcribe from the paper copy):

"In embarking on a journey toward freedom in Iraq, the U.S. does not need to handpick a successor to Saddam, nor does it need to predetermine every single step in the post-Saddam era. But we expect the U.S. to make a full commitment to accepting the will of the Iraqi people and not fail us in our desire for justice. The idea that those who struggled against tyranny with blood and lives should have less of a say than those who have found a way to get by inside the tyranny is outrageous. We hope Washington and other allies of the Iraqi people will hear the message from this conference. We are ready to assume responsibility for the transition to democracy."

The problem with claiming that you're out to "liberate the Iraqi people" is that they (the Iraqi people) might start believing it, as the administration is finding out. It makes it difficult to then turn around and say, "Well, we'll bestow some democracy on you eventually. But, for now, you're going to have a U.S. general, backed by U.S. troops, giving the orders around here for the next two or three years."

And if they think they're going to have trouble with the Iraqi National Congress, wait 'til they have to deal with the Kurds. You can read all of Galbraith's piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19GALB.html

Here's the best part:

"But the Bush administration may have gotten the power calculus wrong. The Kurds have established a real state within a state, with an administration that performs all governmental responsibilities, from education to law enforcement. Their militias number 70,000 to 130,000, and there is a real risk of clashes with any Turkish "humanitarian" force. The democratically elected Kurdistan assembly has already completed work on a constitution for the region that would elegate minimal powers to a central government in Baghdad, and could submit it for a popular vote. Short of arresting Kurdish leaders and the assembly, an American occupation force may have no practical way of preventing the Kurds from going ahead with their federalist project.

And now it seems Turkey's financial demands may exceed what Washington is willing to pay, and Turkey will sit out the war. That could weaken Turkey's influence in creating a postwar Iraq, and improve the Kurds' prospects for self-rule.

President Bush's war has always had a moral component to it: the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal regime. If it sides so completely with Turkey in putting down the democratic hopes of Iraq's Kurds, the administration looks shortsighted and cynical. And not just to the Kurds."

So the leader of the Iraqi National Congress wants a "transition to democracy," which he says "can only be achieved through self-empowerment and a full return of sovereignty to the people." Likewise, the Kurds see an opportunity, once freed from Saddam's iron grip, to establish the foundation of an independent Kurdish nation in what is now Northern Iraq. The Turks, our allies, are dead-set against this ever happening (from the Galbraith op-ed):

"In the latest buildup to war, the Kurds took comfort from their special status as the only Iraqi opposition group to control a territory, to possess a significant population and to have a substantial military force. Kurdish leaders have been courted at the highest levels, meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But American support hit a wall: Turkish consent to the deployment of American troops for a northern front against Iraq is considered an important, although probably not essential, element in American planning. In addition to billions in cash, Turkey has demanded an ironclad assurance that there will not be a separate Kurdish state."

Which raises a couple questions. Once you start democratizing the Middle East, where do you stop? Why is it OK for the Iraqi people to be free from Saddam Hussein, but not for the Kurds to be free from the oppression of the Turks? And just how free is Iraq going to be, anyway? I'm not the only one wondering. There was an opportunity for non-Security Council members to weigh in at the U.N. yesterday. Here's what the Iranian envoy, Javad Zarif, had to say about post-Saddam Iraq:

"The prospect of appointing a foreign military commander to run an Islamic and Arab country is all the more destabilizing. Given the state of the Iraqi society and the whole region, there are so many wild cards and no party could fit them beforehand into its calculations with any degree of certainty. But one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq."

You can read the whole article here - it's called "Muslim Lands Say War Could Bring Havoc":

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/international/middleeast/19NATI.html

The reason the Galbraith article is called "Flashback for the Kurds" is because in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, Bush Senior abandoned the Kurds to Saddam's gunships after urging them to rise up against the dictator. There is a history of U.S. betrayal, particularly with the Kurds (we financed and armed Turkey throughout the 1990s, when that country waged a brutal campaign of extermination against the Kurds in the southeastern region). Chalabi writes early on in his piece that "the polite term of 'regime change' is new in the American political vocabulary." That may be, but the sort of behavior it so euphemistically describes has been around for a while. And anyone who thinks that U.S.-led "regime change" is the path to democracy had better study a little more history. You might start with Chile, in 1973.